11 Governors Back Assault Weapons Bans at Supreme Court
Eleven Democratic governors, including New York's Kathy Hochul, filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold bans on common semi-automatic rifles. The filing supports Connecticut's ban and a Cook County, Illinois restriction. According to the source report, the governors submitted the brief on October 28 in the consolidated cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Their goal is simple: keep these prohibitions on the books. The brief calls these rifles "assault weapons," a label that describes cosmetic features, not function. Those rifles are standard arms owned by millions of Americans.
Key Details
The brief's core facts and claims break down as follows:
- Filing date: October 28, announced in a news release from Hochul's office.
- Signers: Hochul and 10 fellow Democratic governors, identified as members of the Governors Safer Communities Initiative.
- Cases: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated before the Court.
- Hochul's position: She cited the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, which occurred four years before her statement, and called a ruling against the ban "unconscionable."
- Legal theory: States hold a "traditional police power" to protect health, safety and welfare, and elected officials need flexibility to tailor policy.
- Federal ban claim: The brief asserts that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely during the decade the 1994 federal ban was in effect.
The brief's statistics draw on federal research that cuts against them. A congressionally mandated study found the banned rifles were never used in more than a modest share of gun murders before the ban. It also found the ban's 10-round limit on new magazines did not matter in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. A follow-up study said the ban's effects on gun violence were "likely to be small at best."
Background
The Second Amendment fight over these rifles started long before this brief. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It also said that arms in common use for lawful purposes receive that protection. Five years later, the Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) reaffirmed that stun guns and other common arms fall within the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court replaced the means-end balancing test that lower courts had used. Under Bruen, the government must show that a gun regulation matches the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Congress passed the federal assault weapons ban in 1994, and it expired in 2004 after a sunset clause. Connecticut enacted its own ban after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. Cook County's ordinance followed. Those restrictions now face challenges that the Supreme Court may take up.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
If the Court upholds these bans, the effects will reach beyond Connecticut and Cook County. Several states have passed similar prohibitions that restrict ownership, sale and transfer of AR-platform and AK-platform rifles, along with detachable magazines above set capacity limits. A pro-ban ruling would give other legislatures a green light to write similar laws. Owners in Connecticut and Illinois should track the case closely. Anyone who owns a covered rifle should confirm the exact definitions in their state or local ordinance. Registration deadlines, grandfathering rules and transport restrictions vary by jurisdiction. Gun owners who travel should also check the laws of every state on their route. Staying informed on these definitions matters more than any single headline.
DownRange Analysis
The brief's legal argument is weak under Bruen. The governors lean on public health, police power and the idea that states need flexibility. Bruen rejected that kind of interest balancing. The question is whether a modern ban fits the historical tradition of regulating arms. Heller already said common arms get protection, and the AR-15 is about as common as a rifle gets. The statistics in the brief also invite scrutiny, because the federal research it cites says something different. The governors are asking the Court to weigh emotion and policy goals. The Court's framework does not allow that. From a market standpoint, a ban upheld at the Supreme Court would drive more states toward similar laws, and prices on covered rifles and magazines could spike in the states that pass them. Right now, gun owners should keep their paperwork clean, know their local definitions, and support organizations litigating these cases. Watch the docket. The justices will decide whether Bruen means what it says.
